Nuclear weapons in a WWIII?

2021-09-02 00:05:11 CINDY

Moin, wanted to know if it allows nuclear weapons or other ABC weapons in a WW III are allowed.

My father says: "No, these may only be used for deterrence."

That's what agree with me, I'm sure ...

I mean USA, Russia, North Korea and China are where do not be afraid to fire these ... (my fear that it happens)


My father says: "No, these may only be used for deterrence."

Partly your father already has! -

- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------

The International Court of Justice in the Hague in the Netherlands found in 1996 that The threat and use of nuclear weapons are prohibited , ie against violent law .

The Court only one exception to: Extreme Case Self-defense of a state if the survival of this state is endangered.


------------ -------------------------------------------------------------------- -------------------------------------------------------------------- ----------------

But in the (total) war hardly a war party is banned - there is the right of stronger (Fausrecht)

Why is hardly anyone who has nuclear weapons, but also use them! - Force you know exactly if I shield with A-weapons on another state - (eg USA on Russia or Russia at USA) - I die as second - because you, so to speak The "ECHO" - the counter-attack - on which the A-weapons has fired - not tolerated. - because this his A-weapons already direction aggressor (warTrigger) starts / backs before being destroyed by its A weapons!

"the balance of horror"

The much Greater risk is already from smaller - unpredictable states, such as. North Korea, Pakistan, and Iran - While still has no A-weapons, but it is "working" again - which is particularly offset by Israel in fear and horrors!

All the best for you!


or not does not matter. Contracts or commitments are obsolete in the war. Most of the time there is war.

The question is, nuclear weapons are used in a war. In my opinion - no. There are three major countries USA, China and Russia. If you are throwing atomic weapons on these countriesT, there is 100% a counterintaker. Unless one manages to clear the country with a blow. But that should be close to the impossibility.

Then there are smaller countries. However, these are usually allied with one of the big ones. Say, when the small country meets an atomic bomb, then there will be a counterintaker of one of the big ones.

In my opinion, there is only a situation where there is a nuclear impact - if one of the big countries are nothing more has losing. Let's say Russia is about to be completely taken in front of it. Then you will want to harm the opponent again as the last resource.


We talk about reason that no A weapons are used, but are all people, especiallyThe decision-makers reasonable?

Although the earth could be revered several times, Trump has commissioned the construction of mass smaller a bombs, is the reasonable decision?

and readily trust I admit that this kind of politicians to apply such bombs, always in the hope of losing the overview? -Za biden / mini-nuke-America-Will-more-small-atom bomb-15430483.html


The beautiful at nuclear weapons is just that you are no longer have to make any more regulations.

The question reminds me strongly on the typical German "that-must-all-his-order-having" mentality. For many mEssen in this country, it is also completely unthinkable, without a driver's license to drive car or not to create the seat belt. From "Oh Godoot, which

may You're not! 1" Jump the mentally somehow directly to "This is physically not possible !! 1"

I can assure you: both are physically absolutely Possible and even very simple, as well as every weapon that has to use in a war.

That it would have consequences, stands on a completely different sheet and is not identical to a ban, not to mention a ban that somehow prevail.


Honestly Do you think it's interested in if it is forbidden to use nuclear weapons in war? Who she has, she not only has herR deterrence, although the model works well.

Nuclear weapons in a WWIII?